Quote from: AHOYBRAUSE on February 07, 2025, 03:13:36 PM

Quote from: Coyster on February 07, 2025, 12:33:46 PM

Quote from: Dave1 on February 07, 2025, 06:32:11 AM

Yeah, I read their response about this case, and it's good thing that Razed had paid their customer and will change their sport provider. And so it was a happy ending and their reputation here stays, so everything is good not for the user.

Like i already said, it was a good ending, the customer got paid and it is case closed from his end. That being said, i don't fully understand how the provider is at fault, is it the provider that checks KYC? Because this customers KYC was checked and the casino returned with the accusation that they were all forged. This customer was also accused of being part of a betting syndicate, was the accusation made by the sports provider?

That's exactly the issue here. Odds provider don't check KYC I think. They can request it and the casino does it but since when do they verify anything? That's not their job.
Sorry but to me this looks like a lame excuse since they have to present somebody to blame. I mean we had 2 accusations made by the casino, with the forged documents as well as the betting syndicate thing. And suddenly a solution and blame of someone else, sounds fishy to say the least. Guess they didn't want to tarnish their reputation this early, anything else makes no sense. Glad OP came here with this case, otherwise he might not have gotten paid, which is sad.

This is also a possibility, that they don't want to go on and be dragged in this case, and so they just blame whoever it is. And how we can be assured that they really switch provider?

In any case, it's a solved case already, but still there are a lot of questions. Or this could set a precedence? no?

So let's see the next accusations if there will be against them and how it will be result or will this be a repeat process.